Given the impacts drought, wildfires and climate change are bringing to western landscapes, anything that can promote the resiliency and the sustainability of public lands should be a welcome development.

The Bureau of Land Management’s mission has gotten out of whack over the decades, with the “sustained yield” portion taking a back seat to managing for multiple uses, such as mineral extraction, grazing, timber and recreation.

The BLM is now accepting public comment on a draft “Public Lands Rule” that largely aims to elevate conservation and put it on equal footing with other uses of the land. But not without some pushback over concerns that the new rule will “lock away” lands, hinder development and inflict economic harm on western communities.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

This tension is familiar as BLM land-use plans have whiplashed between policy preferences of different administrations. That’s why we think it’s smart for the BLM to provide some clarity and reinforce the notion that its two-pronged mission can be achieved in a fair, sensible way.

But arguing over a rule that provides clear direction about managing for sustained yield is instructive. Opponents of the rule are essentially arguing for the status quo – that things are fine the way they are.

Are they? The agency is developing the rule as a means of maintaining intact lands to help support wildlife, migration corridors and ecosystem function. The rule creates intentionality around conservation. Instead of being the absence of use, conservation becomes a more refined tool – defined as both preservation and restoration – to promote sustainability.

A central feature of the proposed rule is conservation leasing, which would provide for time-limited leasing of lands for restoration or mitigation work. This would include compensatory mitigation work to offset impacts of development on public lands, but also potentially work by sporting or conservation groups for purposes such as restoring wildlife habitat.

Conservation leasing seems to be the cornerstone of objections to the draft rule. Mesa County commissioners were prepared to sign off on a letter asking the state’s congressional delegation to support measures that would kill the rulemaking. But they’re willing to allow for more time for the public to get up to speed.

The rule has all the hallmarks of a classic partisan divide. Democrats in Congress pushed for the Biden administration and the Interior secretary to prioritize sustained yield and Republicans are sponsoring measures that would require the BLM to withdraw its proposed rule.

The BLM has been clear that the proposal does not undermine any existing valid rights or require the use of conservation leasing. Nor does it impede development on public lands.

The BLM said in a news release that the conservation leasing “tool has the potential to expand opportunities to accelerate restoration of big game migration corridors or establish carbon markets, for example, and directly responds to comments from state and industry partners on the need for a reliable path on public lands by which to pursue compensatory mitigation to facilitate development projects.”

We like the rule because it doesn’t alter multiple uses; it simply provides much-needed guidance on how to allow for them in a sustainable way and re-establishes the importance of managing our cherished landscapes for ecological health.

The rule will influence how local land-use plans are made and that’s where the rubber really meets the road. It doesn’t change the fact that land uses are still driven by local interests and input.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

Read the original article here.